The attorney scandal is a cover-up revolving around efforts by the Bush administration to disenfranchise African-American voters in communities where the vote is close.

The Bush administration is shocked, shocked, that the firing of a few U.S. attorneys has caused such a stir in Washington. After all, the Oval Office says, the President can choose whomever he wants to prosecute federal cases. But the Supreme Court declared in Berger v. United States that a prosecutor's job is to see that justice is done, not to politicize justice. The mass ouster of the top prosecutors had more to do with keeping a grip on power -- by manipulating voting rights -- than with doing justice. And like the Watergate scandal, the evidence points to a cover-up.

This cover-up revolves around efforts by the Bush administration to disenfranchise African-American voters in communities where the vote would likely be close. George W. Bush came to power in 2000 by a razor- thin margin awarded him by the Supreme Court. During the 2004 election, there were allegations of attempts to disenfranchise African-American voters, especially in Ohio. Yet no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African-American or Native American voters from 2001 to 2006.

Instead, the administration instigated efforts that would further disenfranchise these voters. U.S. attorneys were instructed to prosecute "voter fraud" cases. "Voter fraud" has "become almost synonymous with 'voting while black,'" the New York Times' Paul Krugman observed. Also, Republican lawmakers enacted voter ID laws which established new hurdles for voters to jump.

Former staffers in the Justice Department's civil rights division said they were "repeatedly overruled when they objected to Republican actions, ranging from Georgia's voter ID law to Tom DeLay's Texas redistricting, that they believed would effectively disenfranchise African-American voters," Krugman added.

The administration's effort to prosecute voter fraud is a sham. The New York Times reports that voter experts have found "widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud." However, the Election Assistance Commission, a federal panel charged with election research, skewed the findings of the voter experts.

The Bush administration has been hyping voter fraud since the last election; Karl Rove called it an "enormous and growing" problem. Two of the fired U.S. attorneys, David Iglesias from Albuquerque and John McKay from Seattle, were dismissed because they refused to file voter fraud charges after being warned to do so by well-placed Republicans. Others were fired for pursuing investigations of Republicans.

Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' former right-hand man, wrote in an email that the qualification to be a U.S. attorney was to be a "loyal Bushie."

Shortly after the Watergate break-in, President Richard Nixon and his loyal chief of staff H.R. Haldeman spoke in the old Executive Office Building. Their conversation was taped, but 18.5 minutes were erased. This gap incriminated Nixon in the cover-up which eventually led to his impeachment and resignation.

Likewise, there is a suspicious 16-day gap in the email records between the Justice Department and the White House just before seven of the U.S. attorneys were fired in December. Moreover, many of the communications about the matter were conducted using email accounts of the Republican National Committee instead of government accounts, possibly in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

The Los Angeles Times reported that senior Justice Department officials prepared documentation to justify the firings after the dismissals. One Justice Department official threatened to "retaliate" against the eight fired U.S. attorneys if they continued to publicly speak about their dismissals.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who heads the Justice Department, denied he was involved in discussions about the firings. But Sampson testified that Gonzales was consulted at least five times and signed off on the plan to fire the U.S. attorneys. "I don't think it's entirely accurate what he [Gonzales] said," Sampson told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gonzales is reportedly sweating bricks over his own testimony before that Committee, slated for April 17. As a result of Gonzales' stonewalling in response to the House Judiciary Committee's request for documents, committee chairman Rep. John Conyers has subpoenaed the records. If the Justice Department defies the subpoena, the Judiciary Committee, and the full Congress, could cite the department for contempt of Congress, and a federal grand jury could issue criminal indictments for obstruction of justice.

The White House has indicated it will not allow Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to testify under oath. Why the resistance unless they intend to lie?

Alberto Gonzales should be fired, not just for malfeasance in the U.S. attorney affair, but also for advising Bush to violate the Geneva Conventions which led to torture and abuse of prisoners in U.S. custody. Recall that Gonzales told Bush the Geneva Conventions were "quaint" and "obsolete." Those were the same words the Nazi lawyers used at Nuremberg to describe the Geneva Conventions.

Firing Gonzales may temporarily stanch the flood of accusations about the U.S. attorney matter. But the corruption, the lawbreaking, and the cover-up go deeper -- all the way up to the Oval Office. Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers will put impeachment back on the table.

Now, you Democrats know that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the administration. You also know that President Bill Clinton had his attorney general, Janet Reno, fire all 93 U.S. attorneys when he was in the White House -- marking the first time such a mass firing was ever ordered by any administration. Prior to that, prosecutors were replaced when their terms had lapsed or the attorney general decided it was time to bring in a replacement.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has stated that the Clinton administration's massive firing was OK because it came at the beginning of the Clinton administration and all new administrations have a right to make changes. What she didn't mention was this: The U.S. attorney in Arkansas was in the middle of an investigation into the Clintons' questionable dealings in that state. When that U.S. attorney was fired, the investigation went up in smoke. Why? Could it be because President Clinton replaced the U.S. attorney in Arkansas with his friend from law school, Harry E. Cummins III? Hmm? Just asking. Could it be, maybe, politics?

Some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are complaining that Gonzales is too close to the White House. Hmmm. President John Kennedy named his brother Robert attorney general, and you can't get much closer than that.

As far as the White House influencing the attorney general, did these same Democrats wonder why Reno refused to investigate how a member of the Clinton administration got ahold of private FBI files? Did they complain and feed such information to the news media? You know the answer: no.

The hoopla isn't about these U.S. attorneys. The flak we're being served on a daily basis simply has to do with politics. It has to do with control. It has to do with winning at all costs. It has to do with 2008 and making certain they win in 2008.

This partisan fighting isn't about getting things done for us, the taxpayers; it's about taking control for themselves, the candidates. Tell them to forget it. Tell them to stop the partisan fighting and get some work done. Your tax dollars are paying for it -- and for them.

I also want to know why is it only when Republicans win elections that voter fraud is brought up, but never when Democrats win? Always thought that was strange. Didn't hear a peep about voter fraud after the 2006 election when the Democrats took back control of Congress, wonder why? We sure heard it after 2000, 2002, and 2004, when Republicans were still winning. Very strange, very strange indeed.

Of course Reggie you have no problem woth the CEO of Diebold, Walden O'Dell, in charge electronic voting machines in Ohio and who once made the statement "I will do whatever it takes to deliver Ohio to Bush" These electronic voter machines had no paper trail, and Karl "Zieg Heil" Rove two days before the general election 2004 confidently saying that Bush would take Ohio despite the fact Kerry was between 4-6 ponts up on Bush in in all polls in Ohio, But oh miracles of miracles on election day Bush won Ohio by the same tally....hmmmmm. Isn't it just possible Rove knew votes were going to be munipulated, by O'Dell with his untracable voting machines and thats the reason for such confidence?

Reggie as For Kennedy last I checked we are in 2007 not 1960. You neocons can't justify your president, so you love to deflect your guilty party by attacking Democrats rather than come clean admit the wrong doings of your president, his administration and party. sorry Reggie, that tactic will not work with me.

HA! HA! That is funny drivel you have there with your conspiracy theories and all. I hear the same kind of things going on with the Democratic Party as well, they use the S.S.# of dead people, assign S.S.# to cats and dogs, illegal immigrants, homeless people, you name it, I have heard it. So your beloved Democrats are not squeaky clean in this arena either. But after last Nov. elections, no one complained, did they? Conservatives are not whiny-butts like liberals are. Liberals are so arrogant that they believe when they lose, it HAS to be a mistake. There is no way the American people would not vote for them.

As for Bush's I.Q. Bush was not the one who was afraid to let his college grades go public, John Kerry was. Ever wonder why? Bush had a higher G.P.A. than Kerry. Not saying Nancy is an idiot, because she could not have gotten where she is if she were, but she is not this incredible genius you liberals make her out to be, and the Democrats will lose control of Congress in 2008 because of her, and her kook fringe leftist cronies she panders to.

Kennedy? Kennedy?! That was such a minute point in my last comment! The main thrust was about Clinton, but I guess you can't address that point, huh? There was nothing wrong with what Clinton did, and there is nothing wrong with what Bush did, this is pure politics, plain and simple. And if you do believe what Bush did was wrong, then you would be hypocritical to not believe what Clinton did was 10 times worse. 8 vs. 93.

I have suspeneded my blog siteI may come back to it at a later date I am sorry that my blogs and site were not appreciated and lacked participation It just seems like my JH Colleagues have little interest in this format I have to devote my time and energy where it is appreciated It seems thats not the case here. I wish JH and My Colleagues here well...Love and blessings to all

Click Videoplayer Below

This Clip Is From Youtube...Rarely shown on mainstream news

A delightful version of

the real warm loving Hillary,

not the "monster" media portrays

I am not Neocon or Republican, not "liberal but progressive"Rather, I like to say "progressive Independent" and independent of ideology, which really means: I think for myself.

My goal is to vanquish Neocons / Bush from this Land near and far...To make women wake up, get angry, protest and act!Aw come on . . . it shouldn't be that hard!......